Human Resources Committee on March 17th, 2010

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I have a couple of quick questions on that, because I think you mentioned the word “bridging.” I think that is the key thing sometimes when people lose a job before they pick up with the next one. I think you're well aware of the work-sharing program extended in the budget 2010 here as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Mr. Vellacott, you have about 10 seconds.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Okay.

At any rate, it protected over 1,000 jobs in Mr. Lessard's riding, about 35,000 jobs in the province of Quebec. I think it is that kind of bridging thing, the work sharing....

I think I'm done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

You're done. Thank you.

I want to say thank you to the witnesses for appearing today. We appreciate the information that you have provided.

Our time is up for this portion of the meeting, so I will dismiss the witnesses, and we'll carry on with our committee business.

Again, thank you very much. Merci beaucoup.

We don't need to go in camera, so as soon as the witness leave the table, we'll carry on with committee business.

We have a couple of things that we have to look at and just get completed, so that we can carry on with the work that we've agreed to.

The first thing we can look at is we need a motion in regard to the poverty study and the information that has been gathered. In front of you there should be this motion:

That the Committee continue the study of the Federal contribution to reducing poverty in Canada and that all the evidence and documentation received by the Committee during the 39th Parliament and 40th Parliament (1st and 2nd sessions) be taken into consideration and be deemed presented in the present session.

Excuse me, can I have order, please? Thank you very much.

Could someone please move the motion? Do I have someone to move it?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Are we all in favour? Do we have a consensus?

(Motion agreed to)

The second matter of business that we need to do in order for some of our expenses to be covered is our operational budget request. Everyone has the operational budget request in front of them.

Could I have someone move that budget, please?

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I so move.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Good. Thank you very much.

We now have a motion brought forward by Mr. Martin....

Ms. Leslie, you'll be presenting it for Mr. Martin?

All right, go ahead.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thanks, Chair.

You should have a copy of the notice of motion from Tony Martin. This is concerning Bill C-304, which we discussed before we adjourned. We actually got it through to the point that we were ready to report it back to the House. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened, so we're starting this over in committee. The motion is actually outlining the fact that we agree that witnesses have been heard.

I will read the motion:

That, the testimonies of all witnesses heard for Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians in the last session be deemed to have been heard in this session and, that the Committee start clause by clause consideration of the said Bill on Monday, March 22, 2010. That any amendment to the Bill be sent to the Clerk by Friday, March 19, 2010 no later than 2:00 p.m.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you.

Madam Folco, please.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I just wondered how that fits into the calendar that we established a few days ago in terms of what was supposed to be going on next Monday, March 22.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

On Monday we will be looking at Bill C-304. So this would fit in with that progress.

Mr. Komarnicki.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I have just a question with respect to this motion. It simply talks about evidence, and it also talks about potential amendments. Was Ms. Leslie intending to file an amendment or amendments, and when can we expect to see them? I was hoping we would have seen any potential amendments by now.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I can say with authority, right now, we don't have any other amendments that we're moving. However, just so the committee is aware, I did talk to the parliamentary secretary outside of this committee to say there may be an amendment coming, and if there was, I would certainly give the parliamentary secretary the heads-up.

Here the motion states that it needs to be sent to the clerk by March 19, so that's this Friday. But if I hear of any other amendments, I can certainly let the committee, even, know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Okay. So if there are any amendments, we need them by the 19th.

Is there any other discussion on the motion? Do I need to read it?

[Some hon. members]

No, dispense.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

All right, we'll dispense with reading the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

Then I think we can go to Mr. Vellacott's motion. We actually have time before the bells are going to ring; very efficient.

Mr. Vellacott.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This motion, verbatim, virtually, is what was passed in the House by all parties with unanimous consent in the name of Mr. Jeff Watson before we prorogued. So the motion doesn't get renewed, as with the bill itself. That's a different little wrinkle in respect to motions. So basically all I'm doing is putting the same wording forward in terms of the study that had been agreed to by all parties in coming to this committee prior to the prorogation. I would think, hopefully, that it's pretty straightforward.

Yes, we did add the words “be instructed to examine”, so there is a difference, whereas the motion itself that was passed unanimously in the House would not have had the words “be instructed to”. That's the nature of the motion that passed in the House.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I would suggest you maybe take those words out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Are you wanting to change your motion or do we want to...?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Komarnicki is suggesting by consent or friendly amendment that we just remove “be instructed to”, that we just do it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

All right. Is there a consensus that we'll remove “to be instructed”?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Yes. “Be instructed to” would be removed, then.

[An hon. member]

Carried.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Is there any discussion on that motion?

None? Wow.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])